Case of the Day: County of Los Angeles Child Support Services v. Superior Court
Posted on December 4, 2015
The case of the day is County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). Fernanda Bischoff lived in Switzerland with her child. She brought an action in the District Court of Zurich alleging that Barry Youngblood, who resided in California, was the child’s father. Youngblood was personally served with documents in the Swiss case, but he claimed that “service was defective because the unsigned Swiss order that he received was not a summons and did not identify the court action, the location of the court, how to contact the court, or the name of the issuing judge.” In any event, he did not appear in the Swiss action, and a judgment entered declaring him to be the child’s father and ordering him to pay child support, based on the testimony of Bischoff. The Los Angeles Child Support Services Department registered the Swiss judgment under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Youngblood challenged the registration, asserting that the Swiss court lacked personal jurisdiction and that paternity had not been determined in the Swiss action.
The Superior Court judge ordered genetic testing of Youngblood. The County objected on the grounds that paternity was determined in Switzerland and Youngblood, if he wished to challenge the determination, had to do it in Switzerland. The County challenged the genetic testing order in the Court of Appeals (I have never understood the California writ system, but in effect the County was petitioning for a writ of mandamus).
Under the UIFSA, there are very limited grounds for refusing to register a support judgment. Non-paternity is not one of the grounds. Lack of personal jurisdiction is, however, a ground for refusing to register a support judgment, and Youngblood made an interesting argument—he claimed that the genetic test was relevant to determining whether the Swiss court had personal jurisdiction, because under the UIFSA, personal jurisdiction over a nonresident could exist if the alleged parent “engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.” But everyone agreed that if Youngblood is the father, then the child was conceived in the United States, not Switzerland. Thus if the Swiss court had personal jurisdiction, it had it for other reasons, and the genetic test was irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.
That’s not to say that ultimately the California courts will agree that the Swiss court had personal jurisdiction. But that ultimate question was not before the court. The end result: the appellate court granted the petition and ordered the lower court to vacate the genetic testing order.